Nithane? Are you insane?

Okay, so I'm gonna go out on a limb here (like I've never done that before; cue evil laughter: Ah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!). For the first time anywhere on this website, I'm going to coin a new term: NITHANE. Now, if you're wondering, "What the hell is Nithane?" don't go running to an authoritative source like Wikipedia (IbdaMann, you stop that laughing right now or there'll be no more internet pitchers of beer for you, young man!), and don't bother asking any of your friends, because they'll be just as clueless, too. That's because nithane is not a thing, it's a something: a continuum of processes. Let me explain.

One of the great misnomers about M2C2 (man-made climate change) is that we are currently causing global warming. Yes, M2C2 can lead to GW, but that's in the end stages after most or all of the water has evaporated from Earth (okay, okay, just take a deep breath and go with it for now). While global warming will be important down the road, our real concern for now should be the things leading up to GW. And that's where yet another incorrect designation in the lineage of M2C2 comes in: CO2 as the main driver of M2C2. Yes, CO2 may be the starting point of M2C2, but if it is, then at best it's merely the primer. Why? Because of this.

It turns out that to get from where we are today to real global warming (I'm talking temperature increases measured in the 100's of degrees, not some measly 0.xxx degrees), you first have to get all the water off the planet. What for? Because the massive amount of water on Earth has the massive capacity to buffer and lessen the impact from GHG's atmospheric retention of solar-originated energy (ARSOE - weird, try saying it out loud - doesn't it sound like a drunk Englishman calling someone an asshole?). So how do you get all that H2O to go-go-go?

While CO2 is a potent GHG, by itself it lacks the capacity to effectively increase ARSOE to the levels required to evaporate the planet dry. Even in our petrochemical age of pollution, there are just too many plants and the oceans waiting around to gooble it up Pac-Man style for it to champion the cause of melting all the snow and ice on Earth. Now that is a problem, because unless you're gonna try for sublimation-en-masse, you first gotta melt all that H2O before you can evaporate (or boil) it all away. On the bright side (for all you sadistic fatalist), what CO2 can do is elevate ARSOE sufficiently so as to begin the avalanche-like cascade of two other GHG's: methane and nitrous oxide.

Methane and nitrous oxide, like CO2 are both GHG's, but each is a far more powerful GHG than CO2 alone, which means that small amounts of either methane or nitrous oxide can be just as powerful as large amounts of CO2. Currently, atmospheric methane is a byproduct of both the petrochemical industry (mostly by burning hydrocarbons) and the agribusiness industry (mostly by pooping poop), but there is a huge release of methane into the atmosphere pending from the soon to melt permafrost regions of the northern latitudes. Nitrous oxide, on the other hand, is primarily released into the atmosphere as a byproduct of using synthetic fertilizers. If CO2 is the primer for M2C2, then methane and nitrous oxide are the kickstarter, and this kickstarting process is what I call nithane.

As we continue to add more CO2 to the atmosphere, we'll continue pushing methane and nitrous oxide levels higher, too. But, while CO2 levels will be somewhat compensated by the plants and the oceans, there are no natural occurring sinks in which to effectively recycle these two other GHG's. Therefore, the concentrations of both methane and nitrous oxide will continue to rise unabated in our atmosphere, and, once the permafrost methane bubble bursts adding to this equation, nithane will occur: an exponential increase in ARSOE. It's this, the first of two apexial points in the ARSOE curve leading to a bone dry planet undergoing real GW, which will allow us to pass over the trigger point of melting all of Earth's snow and ice. Adding this sudden kickstart of nithane to the already CO2-primed M2C2 process will give Earth's atmosphere the capacity to detain sufficient ARSOE to phase change all the planet's remaining solid water into liquid form.

The rest of the story after that is quite simple. Water itself is actually a much stronger GHG than either CO2, methane or nitrous oxide, so once all the ice and snow are gone, the rate of water evaporation from the planet's surface will spike (the second apexial point in the ARSOE curve). This, of course, results in there being more water vapor in the atmosphere, and as the atmosphere is not contained within an enclosed hard shell, the atmosphere will expand and raise that water vapor up to atmospheric elevations from which it can escape into outer space (that's the short version, but I can give you the long one to read if you like).

So, you see, the real equation involved in M2C2 isn't CO2->GW. Instead, it's CO2->nithane->H20-escape->GW. For all you M2C2 believers out there, start thinking about this, because this is what we are really up against. For all you M2C2 deniers, just sit back, relax, and enjoy all the cool weather we still have left.... for now.

@IBdaMann - it's actually all part of Paramount's sequel they're making down there to Cecil B. DeMille's The Ten Commandments called Moses Goes on a Snow Skiing Holiday! You see, all the real snow and ice has already melted, so they had to pile up all this fake stuff for the cameras (and you gotta believe that's true cause I got it straight off the Enquirer's website).

Yes, M2C2 can lead to GW, but that's in the end stages after most or all of the water has evaporated from Earth

Given that the earth has been lots warmer than now. It's currently in an ice age. There is no prospect of human activity ever causing there to be a castastrophic warming which would cause the oceans to evaporate and not rain back down.

This idea of creating a Venus II is a lie. There is no danger what so ever of it actually happening.
Edited on 17-10-2015 22:46

@everyone else - oh joy, nobrains has just served one up on nithane. But, OHHH ladies and gentlemen, it just doesn't quite clear the net.

Scene: cut to the opposite side of the court where trafn, in matching Gucci's his-and-hers tennis wear, stands patiently doing his nails, while waiting with his racquet securely tucked under one arm, says:

"Tim, look dear, why don't you go back to Climate 101 and work out all of your aggressions there, and after that you can come back and we'll have a nice little chattey-poo. Okay?"

trafn wrote:Okay, so I'm gonna go out on a limb here (like I've never done that before; cue evil laughter: Ah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!). For the first time anywhere on this website, I'm going to coin a new term: NITHANE. Now, if you're wondering, "What the hell is Nithane?" don't go running to an authoritative source like Wikipedia (IbdaMann, you stop that laughing right now or there'll be no more internet pitchers of beer for you, young man!), and don't bother asking any of your friends, because they'll be just as clueless, too. That's because nithane is not a thing, it's a something: a continuum of processes. Let me explain.

....

Thoughts?

Don't think I'll follow you out on that particular limb. It's a little too far out from the trunk for me. Interesting thought experiment though.

trafn wrote:@everyone else - oh joy, nobrains has just served one up on nithane. But, OHHH ladies and gentlemen, it just doesn't quite clear the net.

Scene: cut to the opposite side of the court where trafn, in matching Gucci's his-and-hers tennis wear, stands patiently doing his nails, while waiting with his racquet securely tucked under one arm, says:

"Tim, look dear, why don't you go back to Climate 101 and work out all of your aggressions there, and after that you can come back and we'll have a nice little chattey-poo. Okay?"

Your inability to refer to any sort of science is noted.

In order for your ideas to be taken serriously then you will need to stop debating in the religious manner you are employing, that of trying to annoy the other guy into looking mad in an angry sense whilst actually being mad in a sanity sense yourself.

You will need to present some science to support your ideas.

Untill then you are clearly out of your depth in this science focused subject.

@Tim the Plumber - if I were here to discuss M2C2 strictly from a "scientific" perspective, then yes, what you have repeatedly (and quite irritatingly) demanded would be the logical thing. But I'm not.

You see, science is good for a lot of things, like when you first try understanding a new and previously unrecognized problem or situation. I first tried understanding M2C2 back in the 1990's, and I wrote my first paper on it in 2007. I'm now at a point where I can conceptualize M2C2, and synthesize things like ARSOE and nithane, using a multi-modality framework which includes science as well as many other perspectives.

So you see, dear Tim the Dumber, I already took off my training wheels for M2C2. If you're still practicing so as to get your balance, then cheers to you! In the meantime, let me know when you catch up, and do enjoy yourself down there playing in the mud.

PS - if I'm not mistaken, that's Tim there in the green shirt and shoes on the right analyzing the situation.

trafn wrote:@Tim the Plumber - if I were here to discuss M2C2 strictly from a "scientific" perspective, then yes, what you have repeatedly (and quite irritatingly) demanded would be the logical thing. But I'm not.

You see, science is good for a lot of things, like when you first try understanding a new and previously unrecognized problem or situation. I first tried understanding M2C2 back in the 1990's, and I wrote my first paper on it in 2007. I'm now at a point where I can conceptualize M2C2, and synthesize things like ARSOE and nithane, using a multi-modality framework which includes science as well as many other perspectives.

So where did this illustrious paper get published?

Or was it full or drivel?

I would like to see the informed comments from the journals you sent it to.

@Tim the Dumber - do tell, Timothy dearest, beyond the depths of Idiocracy, what is that you actually do plumb?

PS - Idiocracy is an amazing documentary film which would, had there not been nithane laden M2C2, have been an exceptionally accurate portrayal of our planet's pending future where most inhabitants would obviously be the direct descendants of our dear Timothy.

Global warming has already begun in my opinion. Global average temperatures already appear to be on the rise. Also, even in the worst case scenario that is being predicted, the earth is not going to be evaporated dry! In fact, sea levels are likely to rise, and this would likely inundate some regions that are currently inhabited.

At least you acknowledge this as your opinion and not as some sort of "settled science." Kudos for not claiming that it is some sort of theory for which you have "evidence."

StephenS20 wrote: Global average temperatures already appear to be on the rise.

I would ask how these "global average temperatures," i.e. that which we cannot measure to any useful accuracy and which we cannot perceive, nonetheless "appear" to be rising? On the surface, this is an absurd statement.

StephenS20 wrote: Also, even in the worst case scenario that is being predicted, ...

Whose providing these omens? The Oracle down at the corner? The palm reader who also sides as a "climate foreteller"? The shaman at the Olympic games in Rio? Who?

StephenS20 wrote: In fact, sea levels are likely to rise, and this would likely inundate some regions that are currently inhabited.

Says who? Where did you find this likelihood? How was the probability computed? Will sea levels lower when the earth cools?

.

Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin.- trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"!- Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist